Appeal Hearing Set On Roaring River Cafo

[Chief Grey Bear]

Are you related to Taxi? I see a lot of "simmolaritys" in that he seems to side more with industry than us "enviromentalist."

You did see dd's post above listing CAFO animals? I did not see Trout on that list.

[Buzz]

TROUT WASTE VS. TURKEY,CHICKEN,HOG,CATTLE,AND ANY OTHER

Have you ever lived next to one of these????????? I have neighbors who run turkey and chicken houses. It's funny but I only notice them when we have a good hot wind from the east. Oh and when they freely fertilize all of the other neighbors fields, yeah that's a good one. It's always hot and the stink lasts for no less than 2 weeks. Has anyone ever noticed that these things are primarily located on hilltops? Maybe it's just here where I live but I have 3 of them within 1 mile and all of them are located on hill tops above streams or major creeks. To think that this "CRAP" cannot effect our watersheds is either naive or just plain nuts.

I think we should push for more historical sites and get the government to push the limit to at least 5 miles. Not sure if it is an historical site or not but, Roaring River should be. If you read the history you would truly appreciate the outrage.

Buzz

[Aaron J Scott]

My point is that the waste produced by hatchery trout is manageable. The hatchery operations have been producing trout for years and have solutions for spreading or discharging waste that will not severly damage water quality. According to MDC's "A Plan for Missouri Trout Fishing," the hatchery at Roaring River raises 190,000 trout (or 146,000 pounds) per year. Assuming RRSP has a similar wastewater treatment protocol as BSSP, the waste from their production probably, more or less, winds up back in RR. Despite that, it remains a clean stream. I really don't think you can put a hatchery in the same category as a CAFO. Just because my front yard has a thousand earthworms doesn't make it a CAFO.

Placing a CAFO within a mile of the stream poses serious risks to the stream and watershed. If waste from the CAFO doesn't wind up directly in the stream, it will get there from the groundwater. A spring as large as the one at RR is going to pull in water from a lot further out that one or two miles.

From the Joplin Independent Web site:

According to an interim nutrient management system plan submitted by Michelle Ozbun and her husband Rodney, their system will manage the waste from four breeder pullet houses with a total capacity of 65,600 birds and that "annual production will be 2.1 flocks." With flock life estimated at "21 weeks and average weight estimated at 2.5 lb. per bird", they are calling for the "average daily litter production (manure and bedding) to be .41 cu. ft. per 1000 pounds of animal capacity or 386 tons. At 34 lb./cu. ft., the volume of manure and bedding will be about 20,710 cu. ft. annually," or waste "approximately equal to 6954 human equivalents," except, as Stephenson points out, the humans aren't defecating on a dirt floor with the clean-out of waste done yearly from inside the houses in order to be hauled away for land application.

So, imagine 7,000 people living on a few acres next to a popular state park and fishery and all they're good for is crapping A LOT (and making hot wings).

[Snow Fly]

IF I remember correctly the CAFO Bill which was passed by Missouri lawmakers exempt CAFO's from any legal liabilities for "accidental" releases from waste holding ponds, contamination of water ways, legal actions from area residents concerning odor complaints etc. Makes it illegal for communities to pass local ordinances concerning CAFO operations, etc. Why should the state step in and deny the right for communities to govern themselves?

[Roaring River Veteran]

I do not know the Ozbuns other than by name. But being from the Cassville area, growing up on a farm and working at Roaring River for several years I have an opinion on this subject. My biggest problem is that the litter doesn't stay at the farm. It is cleaned up and hauled off. It is typically sold to farmers to spread on their fields. Therefore, the watershed argument is a non-issue.

According to dye tests done by the corp several years ago the water that runs thru Roaring River comes from the Exeter and Washburn prairie area. There are several Chicken farms in those areas.

In addition The cattle farmers in those areas spread turkey and chicken litter on their fields for fertilizer. I wonder where that goes?

Additionally, they have a permit from the state. They did everything by the book. Right or wrong they did what they needed to do to build it legally and now a neighbor who moved in here from another state and bought a 1 acre plot 1/2 mile away wants to tell them how to run a farm that has been in their family for years. If they don't like it they should go back where they came from......

Just my 2 cents.

[Phil Lilley]

My biggest problem is that the litter doesn't stay at the farm. It is cleaned up and hauled off.

Not sure you meant it this way- but it's not a "problem" that the waste is hauled off- that's a good thing, right?

Just clarifying.

[Aaron J Scott]

Read through this legal document filed in 2007 by the plaintiff's attorney. Does it still sound like a non-issue?

[Roaring River Veteran]

Lilly, thanks you are right. It isn't the problem. My point was that it is hauled off therefore the litter isn't there to runoff therefore the watershed issue is mute.

On another note a lot of litter is sold to feed mills who make cattle feed out of chicken litter, there is one in Butterfield. If the old adage of you are what you eat is true and cows eat chicken litter and we all eat cows................ I would be willing to bet that beef will get a lot closer to your mouth than the water from RR so why aren't you concerned about what they are feeding cows?????? Many cities are dumping waste in to the streams. Springfield and James River comes to mind. Cassville and Flat Creek also come to mind. I don't here you complaining about that. When all of you that live in cities that dump their waste into streams start bagging your own waste and incinerating it so not to pollute the water table, you will know how a chicken farmer feels when they have to bury dead chickens or put in an expensive concrete compost and collect chicken litter and haul it off so not to be fined by the state. Then someone gets a lawyer and tells you that your incinerator is polluting the air and that expensive incinerator turns into a lawn ornament. Then you lose your livelihood because you can't incinerate things for a living anymore.

if you want to put a chicken farmer out of business, eat more beef......... oh wait we know what they eat too..........

The problem is people believing the crap a lawyer puts out and thinking it is the Gospel. Then using that Gospel to ruin someone Else's life. For anyone who has never been thru a stats class, you can make statistics say anything you want. Then add to that the old adage of don't believe anything you read and only half of what you see, take into account that you are reading and seeing what a bunch of lawyers put together. Then wonder how much is true.

If you want to talk about watershed. Look at the chicken processor, Georges in Butterfield. It isn't far from where the water in RR was found to come from and it pumps out thousands of gallons of contaminated water each day. No body is complaining about them???

If the state wants to regulate the use of fertilizer because it harms water quality then I will listen, but It should be left up to studies done by qualified personnel and not a lawyer or a person who moved in here with an ax to grind.

that's worth 4 more cents.

[MrsDucky]

#1. I think this was started as a public announcement, not to begin a debate. It's a very emotional issue, apparently, so let's be careful with phrasing to keep our feet off others toes.

#2. The biggest complaint that I see isn't necessarily the waste in the water (although that is a concern); it's the smell, and how that will affect our happy fishing days. We all should agree that animal farms do not smell pleasant, particularly during the summer.

#3. A lot of us spend at least a little time in the water, bringing a fish to hand or trying to see what's going on, and I think there's a small fear of what we might get into and bring home with us. Chicken carry diseases, and those can be passed in the feces. I think that's also a valid concern. Pet stores no longer sell turtles as pets for the same reason.

#4. We all have to eat. Although some of us may be vegetarians, I doubt there are many on here. That food, especially meat, must come from somewhere. That place is not a magical, mystical place far, far away.

#5. When you come along after something is already in place, you don't think about the changes that were made to put it there. It's only when you see the changes as they occur that you realize what happens, and how drastic it can be sometimes.

All in all, I think there are valid concerns and points on both sides. You can make statistics say whatever you want, for either side. You can argue either side, and be correct. You can also argue either side and sound like a moron. If you have something to say, and want it to be heard and do the most good, attend the hearing. I believe you'll find the details in the original post. (Please take what I say as meant to be middle of the road, and try to diffuse some of the tenseness I feel in some of these posts. )

[Aaron J Scott]

Mrs. Ducky, thanks for reeling it back in. You are correct – this is an emotional issue. Beyond that, it is an environmental issue, a food issue, a social issue, etc. And that's what tugs at my emotions.

I often feel like the regulations that the various administrations have set in place allow business, be it industry or agriculture or whatever, to run roughshod over nature – as if the environment is just another competitor in the free market. And if it can't adequately compete, then it stands to lose to something in the process of business, in these entrepreneurial pursuits, just like any other competitor. That's why I believe we need to stand up as a voice for nature, for the environment. As sportsmen, I don't understand why more people don't feel a responsibility to that.

As for your third point, I've been harboring the same worry all week. I fished down at Capps last weekend and came back with a nice scratch across the top of my left hand from catching a briar while hiking through the brush. I didn't notice any posted warning this time (didn't really think to look), but the last time I was down at Capps, there were warnings regarding high e. Coli levels in the stream. For a few days, the scratch only worsened, but now I think it's starting to heal. But it's a real fear when you think you might have become infected while trying to enjoy nature on public lands due to the effects of runoff. And with the strong winds last weekend, there was a reminder how close a few farms are to the stream. And Capps receives much less pressure than RRSP, so I can only imagine what the backlash would be if odor becomes an issue from the contested CAFO.

As far as your fourth point, the food issue, that's a much larger debate. I realize that finding or creating quality protein sources is a continuously growing issue for a continually growing population, but I hope there are alternatives to opening more CAFOs. I think one of the most effect alternatives would be to examine the typical American diet as it stands today and adjusting accordingly. I think there will still be plenty of opportunities for agriculture, but I think a less damaging and more sustainable process is possible.